An in-use microbiological comparison of two surgical hand disinfection techniques in cardiothoracic surgery: hand rubbing versus hand scrubbing

Comparing surgeons' skin tolerance and acceptability to alcohol-based surgical hand preparation vs traditional surgical scrub: A matched quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the tolerance and acceptability of alcohol-based surgical hand preparation versus handscrubbing with antimicrobial soap and water by surgeons.

METHODS

Matched quasi-experimental trial in an academic quaternary care hospital in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, from April 1 to October, 31, 2017. Participants were cardiac and orthopedics surgeons from the study facility. In the first study phase, they performed handscrubbing with either 2% chlorhexidine (CHG) or 10% iodopovidone (PVP-I) and, in the second phase, they performed handrubbing with alcohol-based handrub (ABHR). Surgeons' skin tolerance and acceptability were evaluated using WHO-validated tools. Data were analyzed using the MacNemar's test within STATA.

RESULTS

A total of 33 surgeons participated to the "per protocol" population; the majority were male (94%); mean age of 35 years (SD, 8.5). On product tolerance, there was a minimal variation in redness, scaliness, fissures, and visual evaluation of the skin when handrubbing with ABHR was compared to handscrubbing with either PVP-I or CHX. Regarding acceptability, participants rated better handrubbing with ABHR than handscrubbing with PVP-I when assessing product smell (66.6% vs 0%, p=0.002), color (73.3% vs 0%, p=0.001), product texture (60% vs 0%, p=0.004), skin dryness (60% vs 0%, p=0.004), ease of application (66.6% vs 0%, p=0.002) and overall satisfaction (66.6% vs 6.7% p=0.011). Participants rated similarly handrubbing with ABHR and handscrubbing with CHX, except for product texture, where handrubbing rated better (71,4% vs. 0%, p=0.002). Handrubbing with ABHR was preferred by 73.3%.

CONCLUSION

Although handrubbing and handscrubbing were equally well tolerated by surgeons, alcohol-based surgical hand preparation fell into the personal preference for most of them.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC), RBR-8ym9yj.

Impact of methods and duration of surgical hand scrub on bacterial count: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is no standard protocol for surgical scrubbing. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of surgical hand scrub duration and method by analyzing their effects on bacterial count.

METHODS

The study was conducted on 180 surgical nurses and surgeons. While the duration of surgical hand scrub in Groups I and II was one minute, participants in Group I used a nail brush, whereas Group II did not. Similarly, the duration of surgical hand scrub in Groups III and IV was two minutes, but Group III used a nail brush, whereas Group IV did not. Bacterial count on the hands of all participants was measured before and after the surgical hand scrub and after the surgery by using the glove juice method.

RESULTS

Bacterial count on the hands of the participants in Group III after surgical hand scrub was significantly higher than Group IV (P < .001). We did not find any statistically significant difference between Group II and Group IV in terms of bacterial count on the hands immediately after surgical hand scrub and after the surgery (P = .401, P =.658, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that brushing during surgical hand scrub increased the number of bacteria on the hand. Besides, one-minute surgical hand scrub was equally effective as two-minute scrub to reduce the number of bacteria on the hand.

Hand Bacterial Repopulation Dynamics Following Two Methods of Surgical Hand Preparation during Elective Orthopedic Surgeries

Context:

Antiseptic hand preparations are routine prior to surgical procedures to reduce microbial load on the operating gloved hands. Two methods of surgical hand preparations available are the antibacterial detergent hand wash and an alcohol-based hand rub.

Aim:

The aim of the study was to compare quantitatively, the efficacy of the two methods in hand bacterial reductions during elective orthopedic surgeries.

Setting and Design:

This comparative study was conducted at the orthopedic surgery department of a tertiary health facility.

Subjects and Methods:

One-hundred and sixty dominant hands of operating surgeons and nurses involved in forty elective orthopedic surgeries were studied. The subjects were randomly assigned to either the antibacterial detergent hand-washing (HW) or the alcohol-based hand-rubbing (HR) groups. Swab samples were obtained from the hands before and after hand preparations and at the end of surgeries following removal of the operating gloves. These samples were then subjected to culture. The bacterial counts on these were then obtained through an automated colony counter, and the results were expressed in logarithmic values (log₁₀).

Statistical Analysis Used:

The analysis was done using IBM SPSS software version 20. The mean results obtained were subjected to an independent t-test analysis with the statistical significance level set at P < 0.05.

Results:

Both methods of hand antisepsis showed comparable efficacies in attaining surgical hand hygiene at 1-min postapplication (P = 0.73). HR group, however, showed greater sustained effects during the period of surgeries, though not statistically significant (P = 0.18).

Conclusion:

Scrubbing using the HR method is a viable alternative to the HW method during elective orthopedic surgery.

Surgical hand rubbing versus surgical hand scrubbing: Systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy

BACKGROUND

Surgical hand rubbing (SHR) and surgical hand scrubbing (SHS) are two common methods used by surgeons to reduce surgical site infections. To date, the optimal method that can effectively reduce these infections remains unknown. In this study, we performed a comprehensive statistical analysis to compare the efficacy of these two methods in effectively controlling surgical site infections.

METHODS

A systemic review and meta-analysis was performed by mining literature from major databases, including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, Ovid and Google Scholar, and recruiting studies published between 1980 and 1st April 2019. Analysis was performed using Revman, version 5.3, software, and focused on primary outcomes that included colony-forming unit (CFU) counts and logarithmic reduction of CFU after hand antisepsis and after surgery.

RESULTS

Seven clinical trials met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 764 healthcare workers analyzed. We found no statistically significant differences between the two methods with regards to CFU counts and logarithmic reduction of CFU after hand antisepsis and surgery, as well as antisepsis and surgery times.

CONCLUSION

From the literature, it was evident that SHR had similar efficacy to SHS, without necessarily increasing costs. Owing to advantages such as ease of application, exposure to less dermal irritation, and less time consumption, SHR is recommended as a cost-effective alternative for management of surgical site infections.

Operating Room Hand Preparation: To Scrub or to Rub?

BACKGROUND

The alcohol rub has been proposed as an alternative to the traditional surgical scrub in preparing the hands for surgical procedures. Few reviews have examined critically the evidence that favors or discredits the use of the alcohol rub instead of the traditional scrub.

METHODS

A review of available published literature was undertaken to define the evidence for the best methods for hand preparation before surgical procedures. The focus of this literature review was to compare the bacteriologic and clinical outcomes of conventional surgical scrubbing of the hands compared with alcohol rubs.

RESULTS

The bacteriologic studies of the hands after the conventional scrub versus the alcohol rub demonstrated consistently comparable or superior reductions in bacterial presence on the hand with the alcohol rub. Only four clinical studies were identified that compared the scrub versus the rub in the frequency of surgical site infections. No difference in surgical site infections were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The alcohol rub appears to have comparable results to the surgical scrub and is a reasonable alternative in preparation of the hands for surgical procedures.

Quality of surgical scrub in a heart hospital: Do not take it for granted

Introduction: The role of scrub in the prevention of post-surgery infections is well-known. This study aimed to investigate the inputs and process of surgical scrub in operating rooms of the largest heart hospital of northwest Iran.

Methods: This study took place with a before-after design as a clinical audit in 2014. A check list developed based on national and international standards of surgical hand scrub was used as the study instrument. Checklists were completed by observation of surgical team scrubbing in real situation. Descriptive statistics and graphs were used to describe the results.

Results: A compliance degree with the standards for prerequisites, equipment, general items, process and time of scrub was observed as 58%, 55%, 33%, 68% and 22%, respectively. The compliance degree after the intervention was 72%, 66%, 66%, 85% and 61%, respectively. Improvement was observed in all studied aspects of scrub. The total score of compliance with the standards changed from 47% to 70%. The main issues were incorrect order of scrubbing the areas of the hands, incorrect way of scrubbing the arms, insufficient scrubbing the arms (not above elbow), and lack of awareness about hospital’s policy on scrub time.

Conclusion: The results showed defects in the surgical scrub of the studied hospital and that the compliance with the standards can be improved by simple interventions. Periodical audit and observation of the scrub and then feedback is recommended.

The impact of surgical hand antisepsis technique on surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence exists regarding the effect on superficial and deep incisional surgical site infections (SDSSIs) of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABR) versus traditional aqueous surgical scrubs (TSS). User preferences and practice are unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study examining SDSSIs using VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program cases before ABR implementation (2007-2009, TSS group) and after (2013-2014, ABR group). A descriptive survey.

RESULTS

SDSSI rates were 1.8% and 1.5% for TSS (n=4051) and ABR (n=2293), respectively (p=0.31). The adjusted odds of SDSSI using ABR was not significant (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.51-1.32). Greatest SDSSI risk was from preoperative radiotherapy (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.14-6.78), general surgery (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.30-4.39) and preoperative smoking (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.02-2.44). Of 95 surveys included, 52% favored ABR. Although 95% self-reported correct product application, improper duration was revealed in both groups (TSS 18% and ABR 10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an ABR for use in surgical hand antisepsis did not alter SDSSI rates. Improving product knowledge and compliance may improve SSI rates.

Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections through Hand Hygiene

Previously published guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare facilities. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format, update recommendations with the most current scientific evidence, and elucidate topics that warrant clarification or more robust research. Additionally, this document is designed to assist healthcare facilities in implementing hand hygiene adherence improvement programs, including efforts to optimize hand hygiene product use, monitor and report back hand hygiene adherence data, and promote behavior change. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

The Effects of Surgical Hand Scrubbing Protocols on Skin Integrity and Surgical Site Infection Rates: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to critically appraise and synthesize updated evidence regarding the effect of surgical-scrub techniques on skin integrity and the incidence of surgical site infections. Databases searched include the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Our review was limited to eight peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials and two nonrandomized controlled trials published in English from 1990 to 2015. Comparison models included traditional hand scrubbing with chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine against alcohol-based hand rubbing, scrubbing with a brush versus without a brush, and detergent-based antiseptics alone versus antiseptics incorporating alcohol solutions. Evidence showed that hand rubbing techniques are as effective as traditional scrubbing and seem to be better tolerated. Hand rubbing appears to cause less skin damage than traditional scrub protocols, and scrub personnel tolerated brushless techniques better than scrubbing using a brush.

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients treated in any setting. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2015 for this update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included in the updated review. Four trials reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, while 10 trials reported number of CFUs but not SSI rates. In general studies were small, and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence. SSIsOne study randomised 3317 participants to basic hand hygiene (soap and water) versus an alcohol rub plus additional hydrogen peroxide. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence downgraded for imprecision).One study (500 participants) compared alcohol-only rub versus an aqueous scrub and found no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34, very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (4387 participants) compared alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients versus aqueous scrubs and found no clear evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (100 participants) compared an alcohol rub with an additional ingredient versus an aqueous scrub with a brush and found no evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.34, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision). CFUsThe review presents results for a number of comparisons; key findings include the following.Four studies compared different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands.Three studies found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs resulted in fewer CFUs than povidone iodine scrubs immediately after scrubbing, 2 hours after the initial scrub and 2 hours after subsequent scrubbing. All evidence was low or very low quality, with downgrading typically for imprecision and indirectness of outcome. One trial comparing a chlorhexidine gluconate scrub versus a povidone iodine plus triclosan scrub found no clear evidence of a difference-this was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of outcome).Four studies compared aqueous scrubs versus alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients and reported CFUs. In three comparisons there was evidence of fewer CFUs after using alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients (moderate or very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Evidence from one study suggested that an aqueous scrub was more effective in reducing CFUs than an alcohol rub containing additional ingredients, but this was very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome.Evidence for the effectiveness of different scrub durations varied. Four studies compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the number of CFUs on hands. There was evidence that a 3 minute scrub reduced the number of CFUs compared with a 2 minute scrub (very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Data on other comparisons were not consistent, and interpretation was difficult. All further evidence was low or very low quality (typically downgraded for imprecision and indirectness).One study compared the effectiveness of using nail brushes and nail picks under running water prior to a chlorhexidine scrub on the number of CFUs on hands. It was unclear whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of these different techniques in terms of the number of CFUs remaining on hands (very low quality evidence downgraded due to imprecision and indirectness).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no firm evidence that one type of hand antisepsis is better than another in reducing SSIs. Chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs may reduce the number of CFUs on hands compared with povidone iodine scrubs; however, the clinical relevance of this surrogate outcome is unclear. Alcohol rubs with additional antiseptic ingredients may reduce CFUs compared with aqueous scrubs. With regard to duration of hand antisepsis, a 3 minute initial scrub reduced CFUs on the hand compared with a 2 minute scrub, but this was very low quality evidence, and findings about a longer initial scrub and subsequent scrub durations are not consistent. It is unclear whether nail picks and brushes have a differential impact on the number of CFUs remaining on the hand. Generally, almost all evidence available to inform decisions about hand antisepsis approaches that were explored here were informed by low or very low quality evidence.

Strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections through hand hygiene

Previously published guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare facilities. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format, update recommendations with the most current scientific evidence, and elucidate topics that warrant clarification or more robust research. Additionally, this document is designed to assist healthcare facilities in implementing hand hygiene adherence improvement programs, including efforts to optimize hand hygiene product use, monitor and report back hand hygiene adherence data, and promote behavior change. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections through Hand Hygiene

Previously published guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare facilities. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format, update recommendations with the most current scientific evidence, and elucidate topics that warrant clarification or more robust research. Additionally, this document is designed to assist healthcare facilities in implementing hand hygiene adherence improvement programs, including efforts to optimize hand hygiene product use, monitor and report back hand hygiene adherence data, and promote behavior change. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Eficácia de três métodos de degermação das mãos utilizando gluconato de clorexidina degermante (GCH 2%)

A degermação cirúrgica das mãos e dos antebraços é um procedimento que integra as atividades de paramentação cirúrgica como uma medida de prevenção de infecção do sítio cirúrgico. Com o advento dos princípios antissépticos degermantes, a necessidade do uso de escovas para a degermação cirúrgica tem sido questionada e recomendado o abandono deste uso devido às lesões provocadas na pele. Com a finalidade de fundamentar a eficácia da técnica da degermação cirúrgica sem o uso de escovas ou esponjas, o objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar três métodos para degermação cirúrgica utilizando a formulação degermante de gluconato de clorexidina - GCH 2%: com escova, com esponja e sem artefato. Foram avaliados 29 profissionais da saúde, utilizando o método de caldo de luva para coleta de micro-organismos antes e depois de cada método testado. As análises estatísticas comprovaram não haver diferenças estatísticas significantes na redução microbiana entre os três métodos analisados (p=0,148), o que teoricamente descarta a necessidade da continuidade do uso de escovas e esponjas para a realização da degermação das mãos.

Qualitative real-time schlieren and shadowgraph imaging of human exhaled airflows: an aid to aerosol infection control

Using a newly constructed airflow imaging system, airflow patterns were visualized that were associated with common, everyday respiratory activities (e.g. breathing, talking, laughing, whistling). The effectiveness of various interventions (e.g. putting hands and tissues across the mouth and nose) to reduce the potential transmission of airborne infection, whilst coughing and sneezing, were also investigated. From the digital video footage recorded, it was seen that both coughing and sneezing are relatively poorly contained by commonly used configurations of single-handed shielding maneuvers. Only some but not all of the forward momentum of the cough and sneeze puffs are curtailed with various hand techniques, and the remaining momentum is disseminated in a large puff in the immediate vicinity of the cougher, which may still act as a nearby source of infection. The use of a tissue (in this case, 4-ply, opened and ready in the hand) proved to be surprisingly effective, though the effectiveness of this depends on the tissue remaining intact and not ripping apart. Interestingly, the use of a novel 'coughcatcher' device appears to be relatively effective in containing coughs and sneezes. One aspect that became evident during the experimental procedures was that the effectiveness of all of these barrier interventions is very much dependent on the speed with which the user can put them into position to cover the mouth and nose effectively.From these qualitative schlieren and shadowgraph imaging experiments, it is clear that making some effort to contain one's cough or sneeze puffs is worthwhile. Obviously, there will be a large amount of variation between individuals in the exact hand or tissue (the most common methods) configuration used for this and other practical factors may hinder such maneuvers in daily life, for example, when carrying shopping bags or managing young children.

Impact of the amount of hand rub applied in hygienic hand disinfection on the reduction of microbial counts on hands

Two different hand rubs were tested in order to investigate the minimum volume required for microbicidal efficacy according to the European Norm EN 1500; we also sought to determine whether there is a correlation with hand size. Eight male volunteers with big hands (mean 184 cm(2)) and eight female volunteers with significantly smaller hands (mean 148 cm(2); P<0.001) participated in our study. Application of 2 mL of both products (P) provided mean log(10) reductions significantly smaller than those of the reference disinfectant (R) (product A: P=3.34, R=4.00, P=0.001; product B: P=3.37, R=3.75, P=0.022). Higher volumes (product A: 3 and 4 mL; product B: 2.5, 3 and 4 mL) ensured that the pass criteria of the European Norm (EN) 1500 were fulfilled. For both products log(10) reductions increased with increasing product volume until a plateau was reached. For the smaller female hands, this plateau level was reached after applying 3 mL of product A and 2.5 mL of product B. The plateau level on male hands was observed after treating the hands with > or =4 mL of product A and 3 mL of product B. The increase in product volume also correlated with the decrease in the number of volunteers considering the product volume applied as insufficient. In conclusion, the applied volume for hygienic hand rub should not fall below 3 mL in order to achieve maximum benefit.